tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13625780685828610672016-09-08T00:22:59.347-04:00Why the F-35?Why is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter important and why do we need it?Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.comBlogger322125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-18616519783551001862014-01-21T14:08:00.000-05:002014-01-21T14:08:07.690-05:00My swan song<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">As you’ve probably noticed, my blogging effort here has slowed down considerably.<br /><br />There’s a reason for that. To borrow from “Top Gun”, it looks like the F-35 program is past the "danger zone".<br /><br />That’s where a program such as the F-35 is in danger of being cancelled or drastically cut back to a dangerous point - dangerous for our military and our country. The original impetus for me doing this blog was watching what happened to the F-22 program. It concerned me deeply.<br /><br />Our air power is aging, we were seeing the emergence of a new level of aviation technology that is critical to our future and decisions were made to curtail a program that would keep us on the cutting edge of that technology and almost guarantee our ability to establish air superiority if not air dominance in future conflicts. This blog was my small attempt to try to avoid a repeat of what happened to the F-22 program. I wanted to try to help ensure, given the volume of critical press when I started this, that the good news got through as well.<br /><br />So I concentrated on publishing what some would call “fan boy” posts in which I tried to tell the other side of the story, or simply made sure articles which were good news for the program, but mostly ignored by the critics, got some exposure.<br /><br />The full production of F-35 in combination with those F-22s we have will likely give us the ability to continue to enjoy air superiority, perhaps not as robust as I’d prefer, but robust enough. And given the outstanding year the F-35 program had in 2013, I feel confident that the program is on the right track. I’m of the opinion it will continue to do well and deliver an aircraft that will fulfill all of its promise.<br /><br />I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read the blog and comment over these past few years. However this will be my last post. I wish the F-35 program well and to our future F-35 pilots, may you always have clear skies and a tailwind.<br /><br />&nbsp;Graff <br /><br /></div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-38023989580293246992014-01-15T11:00:00.000-05:002014-01-15T11:00:59.965-05:00Dutch F-35s to carry nukes?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">More of <a href="http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/01/jsf_jet_fighter_could_carry_nu.php" target="_blank">an FYI than anything else:</a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The Joint Strike Fighter may be used to carry nuclear weapons in the future, according to defence minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert and foreign affairs minister Frans Timmermans.<br /><br />Last year a majority of MPs supported a motion stating the F-35 jet fighter should have no nuclear role. However, Hennis and Timmermans have now decided to set the motion aside because of the Netherlands' role within Nato.<br /><br />The minister say they will continue to support nuclear disarmament but say the Netherlands does have a nuclear role for the time being. 'We do not want to be tied to the standpoint set out in the motion,' they said in a briefing to parliament.&nbsp;</blockquote>Dutch politicians as a whole aren't big fans of nukes, however as the Defense Minister says, the Netherlands is a member of NATO and NATO has nukes. <br /><br />It'll be interesting to watch this side-story as it develops.&nbsp; But, bottom line, you're either a member of NATO and all that means, or you're not.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-71420889032670193392014-01-10T09:06:00.001-05:002014-01-10T09:06:30.929-05:00F-35: The great "Chinese parts" tempest in a teapot<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">You probably saw the headlines flying around last week - the F-35 has used Chinese parts to keep it on schedule.<br /><br />It's all about magnets, a law that requires US defense contractors use "specialty metals" made in the US (a magnet is a "specialty metal"), and parts made with Japanese magnets in violation of the law.&nbsp; Once these non-conformal metals were discovered, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/03/us-lockheed-f-idUSBREA020VA20140103" target="_blank">a review of other parts was made</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The documents reviewed by Reuters show that Northrop first discovered the use of non-compliant Japanese magnets on the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar it builds for the F-35 in August 2012, alerting the prime contractor, Lockheed, which then told the Pentagon.<br /><br />A subsequent investigation of all parts on the F-35 turned up two more cases in which non-U.S. specialty metals were used on the F-35's radar, and on target assemblies built by Honeywell that are used for positioning doors and landing gear. </blockquote>The parts in question were $2 magnets used in each of those assemblies.&nbsp; Key point:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Bill Greenwalt, a former senior defense official and now an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the risk to national security appeared low since the magnets in question had no programmable hardware.<br /><br />However, he added: "This is an area that will need considerable due diligence in the future to ensure that components for more high-risk applications are safe from potential tampering and foreign mischief."&nbsp;</blockquote>Indeed.&nbsp; And it looks like the review process caught the violations, reported them promptly and the proper action was taken (they were looking at over $10 million in cost and 25, 000 manhours to replace these magnets vs. keeping them).&nbsp; As Greenwalt mentions these magnets were in hardware which was not programable. <br /><br />So, given those facts, the decision not to replace them seems to be the right one to make. The cost and delay simply wasn't worth the effort.&nbsp; However:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">In his statement to Congress, Kendall said he took the matter "extremely seriously" and said Lockheed was told to take aggressive steps to identify any further cases, and correct its compliance process.</blockquote>And that's as it should be.&nbsp; So, all in all, no harm no foul, process reviewed, action taken.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was a manufacturing and compliance issue, not necessarily a security issue as Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) at the Pentagon pointed out:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"There was never any risk of technology transfer or other security breach associated with these manufacturing compliance issues," he said. "The JPO is working with industry to put in place long-term solutions to avoid the need for future waivers."</blockquote><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-2829248752083739222014-01-07T11:16:00.003-05:002014-01-07T11:16:37.846-05:00F-35: Learning to use the JSF, part II (allies)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Of course the US isn't the only country which will be using the F-35 in the coming decades, and many of our partners aren't going to be able to completely replace their legacy fleet with the JSF.<br /><br />That means they too have got to develop plans and a strategy for the aircraft's most efficient employment based on the reality they face.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.sldinfo.com/the-reshaping-of-the-air-combat-market-fighter-production-in-the-decade-ahead/" target="_blank">The Italian airforce gives us an example of the point</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Illustrative of the shift is the approach articulated by the Chief of Staff of the Italian Air Force.<br /><br />According to Lt. General Preziosa, the F-35 presages a new era in air combat, and he is engaged in working through how his F-35s will work with legacy Eurofighters as Italian air power adapts to 21st century conditions.<br /><br />One way to think about the way ahead is to continue to use 4th generation aircraft in surging mass to more classic airpower situations. One would use the F-35 as the key asset up against the distributed operational settings or for operations in denied air space.<br /><br />Another way to look at it will be to find ways to gain more synergy between the F-35 and the legacy fleet. How can we better utilize our older assets during the process where the F-35 fleet becomes a reality?<br /><br />Shaping combinations of 4th generation with the F-35s will be a mix and match opportunity in tailoring airpower to the missions ahead.<br /><br />This is a challenge; but it is a key task within which the F-35s will make the legacy aircraft more effective; and the 4th generation aircraft will add support and strike capabilities to an F-35 enabled air power force.<br /><br />The F-35 is in the process of becoming the dominant Western production combat aircraft for the decade ahead for the US, Pacific allies, European partners and Middle Eastern allies. </blockquote>That, of course, is an expensive way to do business, given the cost of maintaining&nbsp; a legacy fleet in addition to the F-35s.&nbsp; However, as pointed out, some allies really have no choice.&nbsp; And, of course, the legacy fleet would only be viable in certain tactical situations, thereby limiting their ability to project airpower in situations where the use of legacy aircraft is ill advised.<br /><br />And, of course, even in the situations where stealth and the other capabilites of the F-35 aren't demanded, the F-35 too can load up on external hard points and deliver the goods as needed.<br /><br />But ... unlike the US, an "all F-35" air fleet is just not an option for some airforces.&nbsp; So they are forced into a situation where they have to consider integrating, updating and maintaining a 4th generation fleet as well. &nbsp; And, they have to develop plans to use the F-35 as a combat multiplier for their legacy fleets.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-5336067380396037252014-01-02T12:11:00.003-05:002014-01-02T12:11:50.798-05:00F-35: Learning how to use the JSF<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">That's something <a href="http://news.usni.org/2013/12/31/f-35c-will-eyes-ears-fleet" target="_blank">the Navy is planning on doing as we speak</a>.&nbsp; They'll be working in conjunction with the USMC to fully exploit the F-35's capabilities and advantages.&nbsp; Those capabilities and advantages are new to the Navy and they need to learn how to use them fully:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before. In order to learn how to best utilize the new fighter, one of the first units to receive the F-35C will be the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC)—which is the home of the Navy’s famous TOPGUN school.<br /><br />“One of the earliest places we’re going to put Joint Strike Fighter is at NSAWC,” Manazir said. “We’ll operate them out at [Naval Air Station] Fallon [Nevada] and be able to develop those tactics real-time on the range with Block II AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] F/A-18Es and Fs and F-35Cs.”<br /><br />Moreover, because all three F-35 variants have the same mission systems, the Navy is working very closely with the U.S. Marine Corps to develop tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for the JSF. Manazir noted that the USMC would operate the F-35C from the Navy’s Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers in addition to the F-35B, which will be operated from amphibious assault ships.<br /><br />“We’ll be able to exploit the advantages of both kinds of aircraft,” Manazir said. Right now the Marines are ahead of the Navy in developing the concepts of operation for the F-35.</blockquote>And that's the key to the successful deployment of the F-35 - fully testing it's strengths and weaknesses and then developing tactics, operational concepts and strategies which fully exploit the strengths of the F-35 while guarding against any weaknesses.&nbsp;<br /><br />Sound like they have a plan.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-13759357850311556202013-12-31T10:16:00.003-05:002013-12-31T10:16:57.091-05:00F-35: Critic - "F-4s and A-1 Skyraiders would do fine"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Sometimes you read something that is supposedly aimed at objective criticism and you run across something so silly you just throw up your hands and say, "I'm done".&nbsp; <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/will-the-f-35-dominate-the-skies-9618" target="_blank">This article was one of them</a>.&nbsp; It rehashed all the old, stale arguments against the F-35 and then claimed all we needed to do was buff up our legacy aircraft (and in this case, gen 2 and 3 aircraft) a bit.<br /><br />In fact:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Indeed, for many of the missions associated with the modern practice of airpower, A-1 Skyraiders and F-4 Phantom would perform perfectly well.</blockquote>This is what I call the 'present conflict' syndrome.&nbsp; "Thinkers" like this can't or won't look past the present conflict in which we're involved to possible conflicts of the future.&nbsp; You build your force for the future, not the present.&nbsp; You do it with an eye on who those conflicts might involve and what it might require to be on at least equal and hopefully superior footing.<br /><br />Critics like this also tend to tell us how "expensive" a program like the F-35 is, but never seem to realize that maintaining and upgrading a raft of different lines of mission specific legacy aircraft would be prohibitively expensive.&nbsp; And even then, in a world going stealth, they would be inadequate in almost every way. <br /><br />Could we use F-4s and A-1 Skyraiders?&nbsp; Possibly, in very special circumstances, like Afghanistan.&nbsp; But against China?&nbsp; Iran?&nbsp; Any of a host of other hostile nations with sophisticated air defense systems (another of many potential enemy capabilities they usually ignore)?&nbsp; Of course not.&nbsp; Nor would we do well with our current crop of legacy aircraft.&nbsp; So what then?<br /><br />Warfare evolves.&nbsp; It moves on.&nbsp; While a critic may believe the F-35 has shortcomings, they lose all credibility when they make silly suggestions such as we should just keep what we have while other countries move into the same areas of development as the F-22/F-35 programs are involved.&nbsp; If they had a valid point, I'm sure we'd still be using Gatling guns and muzzle loading cannon.&nbsp; I'm sure they would "perform perfectly well" in certain circumstances.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-47125098894721420162013-12-26T11:25:00.002-05:002013-12-26T11:25:47.015-05:00The F-35's "very good year"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Well this will make the usual suspects <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/12/23/2013-was-the-year-everything-went-right-for-lockheed-martins-f-35-fighter/" target="_blank">foam at the mouth, I'm sure</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Thirteen is looking like the F-35 fighter’s lucky number. After struggling for a dozen years to make program realities match government expectations, in 2013 prime contractor Lockheed Martin saw everything come together. Technical risks were retired. Flight testing progressed rapidly. The price-tag for each plane continued declining. And a new management team discovered that its government customers weren’t so hard to get along with after all. So when the history of the Pentagon’s biggest weapon program is written, 2013 is going to look like the point at which the effort really took off — the year doubts melted away and the F-35 became unstoppable. </blockquote>I'd say, as a short synopsis of the year, this pretty much describes it.&nbsp; Loren Thompson, who wrote it and, as usual, discloses that LM is one of the contributors to his think tank, nonetheless lays out a pretty persuasive case for his lead paragraph in the remainder of the article.<br /><br />In successive paragraphs, Thompson covers testing, production, cost, teamwork and orders.&nbsp; In every area both progress and success are undeniable.&nbsp; Well, except for the critics, who adept at denying reality on a daily basis.<br /><br />Make sure to read the whole thing.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-49532365764740806732013-12-24T09:34:00.000-05:002013-12-24T09:44:20.365-05:00F-35: New sortie record<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Lockheed Martin public affairs has put out a press release with the following:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The joint-program reached a new single-day record for F-35 sorties Dec. 4 with 45 training missions between all three models of the aircraft. The Marine B- model completed 32 of the flights, the Air Force A-model had 10 flights and the Navy C-model flew three missions.</blockquote>As you recall, the critics were telling us how unreliable they believed the F-35 would be and it would never be able to accomplish meaningful sortie rates.&nbsp; It was "too complicated" and would be a "hanger queen".&nbsp; Especially the "B" model.<br /><br />So far, it's not working out that way at all, is it?<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-85735041718544031302013-12-19T12:14:00.001-05:002013-12-19T12:14:42.902-05:00The F-35 and the "dogfight" question<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I see War is Boring is at it again, this time questioning <a href="https://medium.com/war-is-boring/95462ccd6745" target="_blank">the abilities of the F-35 in a "dogfight"</a>.<br /><br />It's an interesting attempt to brand the F-35 as inferior to the F-22 while making it clear the F-35 isn't intended to be the F-22 ... or something.<br /><br />Take this paragraph:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison.</blockquote>Well, yeah ... so are most of the fighter aircraft in the world, "in comparison".&nbsp; And, as they attempt to point out in the article, the F-35 is a Joint STRIKE Fighter.<br /><br />However, the critics have also said that what we should really be doing is buying more F-18s, remember?&nbsp; And they will do well against whatever is out there, or so the argument goes. <br /><br />So what does the F-35 remind pilots of?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.</blockquote>Oh.&nbsp; Gee, given the critics, I'd think that would be a plus. And it has what else?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s ... </blockquote>And? Oh yeah, stealth. <br /><br />So maybe, just maybe, it will be the plane getting the first shot, huh? <br /><br />Obviously the F-35 isn't an air superiority weapon, but will it be able to defend itself?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Will it be able to help establish air superiority?&nbsp; Most likely, yes:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“You have to have the F-35 to augment the F-22 to do the air superiority fight at the beginning of a high-end conflict to survive against the fifth-generation threats we believe will be in the world at that point in time,” Welsh says.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;Bingo. That's the point of the net-centric, information sharing advanced capabilities the 5th gen aircraft share.<br /><br />The F-35 is not a dogfighter, but then we don't want the F-22 to be one either.&nbsp; We want them to be "first shot, one shot, fight over" aircraft.&nbsp; Working together, there's no reason they can't be.&nbsp; And that's Gen. Welsh's point.<br /><br />Graff&nbsp; </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-69469093229058685282013-12-17T12:48:00.001-05:002013-12-17T12:48:30.060-05:00F-35: A couple of milestones<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">First, the manufacturer is set to deliver the 100th F-35.&nbsp; <a href="http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/12/16/lockheed-martin-produces-100th-f-35/" target="_blank">The breakdown:</a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The first 100 F-35s include 44 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variants, 42 F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variants, and 14 F-35C carrier (CV) variants. The U.S. Department of Defense will receive 95 of the first 100 jets from the F-35 assembly line here. The remaining five jets were delivered to two of the program’s partner countries. The United Kingdom received three F-35B aircraft and two F-35As have been delivered to the Netherlands. </blockquote>Deliveries are ramping up as more orders come in.&nbsp; Yup, that's right, we should see those economies of scale begin to kick in big time soon.<br /><br />The other milestone?&nbsp; <a href="https://www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com/gbu-32-weapon-delivery-accuracy-test-completes-f-35-lightning-ii-flight-test-milestone/" target="_blank">A pretty important one I'd say</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">An F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) fighter aircraft successfully employed a Guided Bomb Unit-32 (GBU-32) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) weapon from the F-35B's internal weapons bay against a fixed ground test target on Dec. 6, completing a successful flight test and verification year for weapons integration. The latest series of weapons tests was accomplished with Block 2B software. The GBU-32 JDAM is a 1,000 pound "smart" bomb with high accuracy, all-weather, autonomous, conventional bombing capability that is guided by a Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided Inertial Navigation System (INS) to its target upon separation from the jet. </blockquote>The significance?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The test was a major milestone in the F-35 program for the Marine Corps' F-35 Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015 (employing the 2B software), Air Force IOC in 2016 and Navy IOC in 2018.</blockquote>Onward and upward.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-23298391822426833452013-12-12T12:56:00.000-05:002013-12-12T12:56:00.296-05:00Norway orders 6 more F-35s<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This is addition to those <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/norway-f-idUSL6N0JQ1KE20131211" target="_blank">they recently ordered</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Norway's parliament authorised the government to purchase another six Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for about 4 billion crowns ($654.7 million), the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee said on Wednesday.<br /><br />The six jets, to be delivered in 2018, bring the Norwegian order to 16 planes ...</blockquote>Good news for the program and an indicator that any hesitation by Norway about the F-35 seems to have passed.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Norway plans to buy a total of 52 F-35s by the end of 2024, but purchases for each year have to be separately approved by parliament.</blockquote><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-15802310481587436112013-12-10T09:51:00.002-05:002013-12-10T09:51:25.908-05:00US sees strong interest in F-35 among Gulf states<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">An <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-lockheed-fighter-gulf-20131206,0,6977972.story" target="_blank">interesting dilemma</a> for the US:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Strong demand from Gulf countries for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet has prompted Washington to grapple with the thorny question about releasing the jet to the region sooner than expected, a senior U.S. defense official said.<br /><br />Washington has already approved sales of the new stealth fighter to a range of allies, including Turkey, South Korea, Japan and Israel, but sales to the Gulf require a deeper review given U.S. policy guidelines that call for Israel to maintain a qualitative military edge in the Middle East.<br /><br />Talk about selling the plane to the United Arab Emirates and other U.S. allies in the Gulf came into the open during the Dubai air show last month, with potential buyers weighing whether to buy existing planes or wait for the U.S. government to release the new radar-evading F-35.&nbsp; </blockquote>Obviously the F-35 is an export model, given the sales outside the original partners in the program.&nbsp; However, one of the pillars of US foreign policy in the Middle East has been to ensure Israel has a qualitative edge in weaponry.&nbsp; So selling to other Gulf states requires some decision making that has to take that into consideration. <br /><br />On the plus side, of course, is that more sales means a lower cost per aircraft for everyone.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Decisions about releasing sensitive technologies for sale to foreign countries are made by the State Department in consultation with the Pentagon and other government agencies.<br /><br />"Eventually we're going to have to make a decision. We have a very structured process in place for doing that. And it takes a little bit of time," said the official. "But we are going to have to make decisions on a tighter timeline than we thought."</blockquote>Israel gets their first F-35 in 2016.&nbsp; My guess is there won't be a decision on sales to the Gulf states anytime before that.<br /><br />Why the sudden interest?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The interest in the airplane is coming about simply because it's getting more mature and people are finally realizing that it's really going to happen," said the official.&nbsp; </blockquote>Which means that future sales outside the Gulf states remains a solid possiblity as well.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-68555503781783294372013-12-04T13:34:00.006-05:002013-12-04T13:34:59.617-05:00F-35: Interview with PacAf Gen. Hawk Carlisle<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Gen. Hawk Carlisle <a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2013/11/the-re-shaping-of-pacific-defense-an-interview-with-general-hawk-carlisle/" target="_blank">outlined the emerging Pacific strategy in an interview.</a>&nbsp; And he was clear on what the deployment of the F-35 and F-22 mean to the success of that strategy:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">He sees this reshaping approach as central to shaping the distributed operations approach emerging as the F-35 fleet is deployed over the decade ahead.<br /><br />“The F-35 is the finest sensor-enabled aircraft ever built. The F-35 is orders of magnitude better than the F-22 (which is the greatest air to air fighter ever built) as an electronic warfare enabled sensor-rich aircraft. We already are working synergy between F-22s and fourth generation aircraft to provide greater fidelity of the information shaping air combat operations. With the F-22 and F-35 combination and the folding in of on-orbit information and surveillance systems, we will be able to generate more synergy across the fleet,” the general told us.<br /><br />The other advantage of the F-35 is its commonality across the services. “We are already working on greater synergy among the air power services; with the F-35 and deploying common assets in a dispersed fleet, the efforts we are making now for today’s conditions will only lead to more effective capabilities for tomorrow’s crises as well.”</blockquote>"Synergy", of course, is the key word here.&nbsp; That synergy will take away much of any enemies potential advantage with superior numbers.&nbsp; And the speed and accuracy with which battlefield intel is shared may remove the remainder of a numerical advantage.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">“When you bring Raptor and F-35 into the mix you make every one of the platforms better in terms of its performance for the joint force,” he told us. “And referring back to your concept of S Cubed (Stealth, Sensors, and Speed), when you put those two together with long range strike the synergy unleashed by S Cubed will be significantly enhanced as well.”</blockquote>&nbsp;Make sure to read the whole thing.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-78482544450326927172013-11-27T10:36:00.003-05:002013-11-27T10:36:37.556-05:00South Korean order will help drive F-35 price down<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">To me, that is one of the the big points about this order.&nbsp;&nbsp; It helps provide those economies of scale that the manufacturer <a href="http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/news/Lockheed-Martin-Corporation--South-Korea-order-would-drive-F-35-per-plane-cost-lower-17531902/" target="_blank">needs to drop the price of each aircraft</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Once Seoul - as new buyer - formally notifies the Pentagon about its planned purchases, those jets will be added to the total number of expected purchases by the U.S. military and allies that is used by defense officials to estimate the cost of each airplane.<br /><br />By 2019, the Pentagon projects the cost of each new F-35 fighter plane will be around $85 million, putting it on a par with the cost of current fighter planes, said Jim McAleese, a Virginia-based defense consultant.&nbsp;</blockquote>According to the story the South Korean order could end up saving the US military about $2 billion. &nbsp; More foreign sales (outside the original allied partners) of the aircraft, the lower the cost of each for the US and it's partners. And, as the article points out, foreign buyers are showing increased confidence in the F-35 via their orders.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-80419863385022113512013-11-25T12:23:00.002-05:002013-11-25T12:23:42.070-05:00Navy video about the F-35<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Here's an interesting video.&nbsp; It's the first video I've seen of the Navy actually endorsing and talking positively about the F-35.&nbsp; If you look closely, up in the right corner, you'll see the Navy YouTube subscription logo pop in eventually.<br /><br />The name of the vid? <br /><br />"Inside F-35 Country: Tip of the Spear for the future of Naval Aviation" <br /><br />In other words, this is their "all in" video.&nbsp; It should remove any doubt some may have of their commitment to the F-35.</div><br /><center><object height="260" width="480"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/HN5AF3Wlh1g?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/HN5AF3Wlh1g?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="260" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></center></div><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-19798029851981227042013-11-22T10:21:00.002-05:002013-11-22T10:21:38.243-05:00South Korea to buy 40 F-35s<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">It seems official according to everything I've read.&nbsp; <a href="http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/11/22/28/0301000000AEN20131122005651315F.html" target="_blank">South Korea's decision is to buy 40 F-35s</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">South Korea decided Friday to purchase 40 Lockheed Martin's F-35A stealth fighters for four years starting in 2018, with an option to buy 20 more later depending on the security situation and budget, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said.<br /><br />JCS Chairman Choi Yun-hee held a meeting of top commanders to approve the plan to buy the 40 F-35 Block 3s, which are capable of conducting air-to-air and air-to-ground missions with internal carriage and external stations for missiles and bombs. The software configuration is expected to reach the initial operating capability around 2016, according to the U.S. Air Force.<br /><br />South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to purchase 40 Lockheed Martin's F-35A stealth fighters for four years starting in 2018, with an option to buy 20 more later depending on the security situation and budget, officials said in a briefing held at the defense ministry on Nov. 22, 2013. (Yonhap)</blockquote>That final paragraph leaves the door open for competitors such as Boeing and EDAS.&nbsp; However it appears like the predominant fighter for South Korea in the coming future is going to be the F-35. <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The F-35A will be used as a strategic weapon to gain a competitive edge and defeat the enemy in the early stage of war," JCS spokesman Eom Hyo-sik said in a briefing. "The South Korean military will also use the aircraft to effectively deal with provocations."<br />[...]<br /><br />"The JCS decided to buy 40 jets first to minimize the security vacuum and purchase the remaining 20 after reassessing the required operational capability in accordance with the changing security situations and aerospace technology," Air Force Brig. Gen. Shin Ik-kyun said.<br /><br />Shin said the stealth jet will play a critical role in destroying major enemy targets as part of the so-called "Kill Chain" defense system, which is designed to detect signs of impending missile attacks and launch pre-emptive strikes.</blockquote>Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-38225504424034701422013-11-21T10:09:00.003-05:002013-11-21T10:09:24.368-05:00F-35: The latest on South Korea<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Here's a <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1425201" target="_blank">pretty succinct summary</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The Joint Chiefs of Staff in South Korea will announce what the country is looking for in its $7.8B fighter jet tender tomorrow.&nbsp;<br /><br />What the watch: The focus will be on the extent to which the military stresses the need to for stealth capabilities.<br /><br />As Bloomberg notes, it isn't exactly a secret that the country wants Lockheed Martin's F-35, but procuring 60 of the fifth generation aircraft would require an extra investment of more than ₩2T.<br /><br />Boeing (BA) and EADS (EADSF) are hoping for a split order.</blockquote>I think that pretty much says it all.&nbsp; We should be hearing something over the next few days.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-81623980470591808902013-11-19T12:07:00.000-05:002013-11-19T12:07:11.982-05:00Navy again states commitment to F-35<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">There have been a multitude of stories in the past claiming the US Navy is less than fully committed to the F-35.&nbsp; Proof of that is usually offered by citing the service's orders of F/A-18 and EA-18G aircraft to fill the gap prior to full deployment of the F-35.&nbsp; And it is again being claimed since the F/A-18 is scheduled to cease production in 2014 and the Navy is interested in seeing that production deadline extended into 2016 that they're less than committed to the F-35.<br /><br />I won't bore you with the various reasons for that, you likely know them as well as anyone.&nbsp; But it would be foolish to say that such an interest in an extension for the F/A-18 by the Navy is tantamount to less than full commitment to the F-35.&nbsp; And Dep. Asst. Sec. of the Navy for air programs, Richard Gilpin, made that pretty clear <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-airshow-dubai-navy-fighters-20131119,0,3213617.story" target="_blank">when questioned at the Dubai Air Show</a>: <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Let me be clear. The Navy is very committed to moving to JSF. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that the Navy is not committed to JSF, because we are," Gilpin said.&nbsp;</blockquote>However he does mention the possibility of "<i>budget-driven pause in procurement</i>" of the F-35.&nbsp; Thus the interest in extending the F/A-18 production deadline.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-91089899031631626312013-11-18T11:35:00.002-05:002013-11-18T11:35:39.723-05:00Some questions emerge about Turkey, the F-35, Chinese missiles and NATO<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Interesting article <a href="http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/missile-deal-not-linked-to-f-35-says-commander.aspx?pageID=238&amp;nID=58074&amp;NewsCatID=345" target="_blank">from a Turkish news site:</a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The head of the Turkish air force said on Nov. 16 that he did not see any linkage between Turkey’s interest in buying F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and the missile defense procurement process.<br /><br />General Akın Öztürk told Reuters that Turkey was poised to decide in December or January whether to proceed with an initial purchase of two F-35 fighter jets, but the exact date had yet to be set.<br /><br />“I am very interested in the F-35,” Öztürk said after his speech at the Dubai International Air Chiefs. “We have enough money.”</blockquote>The Turkish/NATO alliance has always been one that seemed a little odd to many.&nbsp; When Turkey entered NATO, it was a different country than it is now.&nbsp; More aligned with the West, it seemed to be a good fit, but since then, Turkey has shown great interest in becoming a regional power within the Middle East. <br /><br />It has also attempted, because of that, to show some independence. And then there are the economic times to consider. Thus the Chinese missile buy.&nbsp; However, it is troubling as well. And, it points to some possible serious degredation of the capability of interoperability among the allies:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Asked at a global gathering of air chiefs about U.S. concerns that the Chinese system would not be interoperable with those of NATO members, he said, “This is not the last position of Turkey. It may change.”</blockquote>Turkey, as one might imagine, is under pressure from NATO and the West to not buy the system.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Secretary of State John Kerry and other U.S. government officials raised concerns after Ankara’s choice of the missile defense system built by China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp, a firm that is under U.S. sanctions for violating the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act. </blockquote>The competitive US system, of course, is the Patriot Missile system:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">U.S. arms makers Raytheon Co (RTN.N) and Lockheed are considering ways to sweeten their offer to build a Patriot missile defense system for Turkey, two sources familiar with the issue told Reuters earlier this week.<br /><br />Both sources said no decisions had been made and it was important to allow Turkey - a member of NATO - time to make up its mind. The companies are also reviewing the offset agreements and co-production deals involved in the U.S. bid, the sources said. </blockquote>Given that the F-35 will be a part of their Air Force and we know the Chinese interests in the aircraft and the technology it will bring to Turkey, it is also worrying that China would have a presence, through their missile system, in a NATO country. <br /><br />If I had to guess, and this is purely speculation on my part, Turkey will eventually choose the Patriot missile system.&nbsp; Like South Korea, this may be a negotiating tactic to get a better deal.&nbsp;<br /><br />Graff<br /></div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-68903544040016854452013-11-16T10:07:00.001-05:002013-11-16T10:07:13.009-05:00It appears the F-35 will be South Korea's choice<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Just in, <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/airshow-dubai-lockheed-fighter-idINL2N0J00JQ20131115" target="_blank">from Reuters</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff were expected to endorse an "all F-35 buy" of 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets and an option for 20 more at a meeting on Nov. 22, two sources familiar with the competition said on Friday.<br /><br />The Joint Chiefs' decision must be approved by a committee chaired by the South Korean defense minister at a meeting in early December, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.<br /><br />A decision by the Joint Chiefs to purchase only F-35s would be a setback for Boeing Co, which had hoped to sell Seoul at least some F-15 fighters as a hedge against delays in the F-35 fighter program, which is completing development.<br /><br />One source said South Korea was sticking to its initial plan to buy 60 jets to preserve the terms of an industrial offset package that accompanied the Lockheed offer and included a satellite to be launched and placed in orbit.&nbsp; </blockquote>If true (and there's no reason to believe it isn't, given all the other reports coming out of ROK recently), that shoots my theory that it would be a mixed buy down.&nbsp; Also, by agreeing to early procurement, a buy that size will help further drive the price of the F-35 down as LM will be able to ramp up production.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-64124438830565005262013-11-15T12:36:00.003-05:002013-11-15T12:42:44.279-05:00F-35: Engine prices keep coming down ... as expected<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This one flew under the radar apparently.&nbsp; It wasn't bad news so I suppose it simply bobbed to the surface for a day and then sank back into the media's vast ocean of inanity.&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/pentagon-f-35-program_n_4152798.html" target="_blank">Anyway:</a><br /><blockquote>The Pentagon on Wednesday announced it had finalized a $1.1 billion contract with Pratt &amp; Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, to build 38 engines for a sixth batch of F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp. </blockquote><blockquote>The Pentagon's F-35 program office and Pratt said the two sides signed a $508 million contract modification on Wednesday. Added to previously awarded preliminary contracts, that brought the total value of the contract to $1.1 billion. </blockquote><blockquote>The contract covers 38 F135 engines, as well as program management, engineering support, sustainment and spare parts. </blockquote><blockquote>"This agreement <b>represents a significant milestone for the F-35 program</b>, and reflects <b>the execution of cost reduction initiatives </b>shared by the government and Pratt &amp; Whitney," the program office and Pratt said in a joint statement. </blockquote>And so it goes.&nbsp; Costs continue to come down and the testing continues to go well, much to the chagrin of the critics who have been strangely silent for a while.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-9561322377870066042013-11-12T13:26:00.003-05:002013-11-12T13:26:40.932-05:00F-35: the benefits of stealth and situational awareness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">American Innovation has another good post up, this one discussing the benefits of stealth and situational awareness - two capabilities the F-22 and F-35 share.&nbsp; While the article is mostly about the F-22, <a href="http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-benefits-of-stealth-and-situational.html" target="_blank">the F-35 is discussed</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The F-35 shares stealth and heightened situational awareness with the Raptor and, given all the information that has been publicly released, there is no credible reason to conclude the F-35 is incapable of preforming similar "stand-off kills" utilizing stealth and situational awareness as described by Brown. If I may be frank for a moment, while the F-35 is certainly not as maneuverable as the F-22, it still preforms favorably relative to its peers in some maneuverability performance based metrics (e.g. good subsonic acceleration, decent thrust-to weight ratio, and commendable angle of attack performance). Oftentimes the descriptions of the F-35's maneuverability characteristics made by staunch critics are more applicable to an An-225 strategic airlift cargo aircraft than the F-35.</blockquote><br />I got a chuckle out of that and pretty heartily agree.&nbsp; Go read the whole thing.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-63674632942299492922013-11-11T15:38:00.000-05:002013-11-11T15:38:05.276-05:00F-35: South Korea to up "stealth features" as primary standard for bid?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Here's the latest on the South Korean bid <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2013-11/11/c_132878317.htm" target="_blank">gleaned from the internet:</a><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">South Korea was widely expected to pick the U.S.-based Lockheed Martin's F-35 as its major next- generation fighter jet that will replace aging fleets from 2017, a local newspaper reported on Monday citing government and defense officials.<br /><br />According to the local daily Chosun Ilbo, the country's Air Force has recently proposed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to apply higher standards of stealth functions and aviation electronics equipment to the next-generational fighter jet procurement program.<br /><br />The stricter standards would raise possibility for the Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet to become a sole bidder at the upcoming tender bids, the newspaper said, noting that it may beat other potential bidders, including Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and EADS' Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon, in terms of stealth features.&nbsp; </blockquote>What that says to me is they've gotten the price they want from the US/Lockheed on the F-35 and now they have to find a way to make it the only aircraft that meets its new standards.<br /><br />Another way of saying that is they always wanted the F-35 (despite reports to the contrary) but just didn't like the price.&nbsp; And this bidding process was a means of getting the price in a more acceptable range.<br /><br />Graff</div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-42027357018468932002013-11-07T12:09:00.002-05:002013-11-07T12:09:28.469-05:00Dutch Labor Party okays purchase of 37 F-35s<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">In more good news for the F-35 program, the Dutch, who had been seen by some as possibly backing out of the F-35 program, <a href="http://www.nltimes.nl/2013/11/07/labour-party-gives-ok-buy-37-f-35-fighter-planes/" target="_blank">have the okay to purchase 37</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The Labour Party said it supports the government’s decision to purchase 37 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), Nos television reports Wednesday.<br /><br />“We give the green light” to the government, Labour MP Eijsink said.</blockquote>That's the approval the Dutch government was seeking to move ahead with the purchase. <br /><br />The train keeps rollin' ...<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1362578068582861067.post-88767096232064099372013-11-06T13:47:00.001-05:002013-11-06T13:47:07.205-05:00F-35: Ignorance is bliss among critics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">My father, who was career military, said he was never able to watch war flicks because inevitably the ignorance of the writer and film producer about how the military works would shine through and ruin it for him.<br /><br />I've come to that point when reading the word salad critics churn out in opposition to the F-35.<br /><br />A prime example of that comes <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ea5fce6a-42f5-11e3-8350-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2jtESRxS2" target="_blank">from the Financial Times</a>, which it appears, should stick to things financial.&nbsp; Here's an example of their "expertise".&nbsp; First they take a shot at the F-35's stealth:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Energetic radar development in both Russia and China may see this advantage watered down by the 2020s, as ever more sophisticated radars enter the export market.&nbsp;</blockquote>Obviously, however, 'ever more sophisticated' jamming equipment will be left to molder, right?&nbsp; And regardless, low observability coupled with "ever more sophisticated" radar jamming equipment will still be quite a plus over non-stealthy aircraft, won't it?<br /><br />Strike two:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The internal weapons carriage of the F-35 is limited, meaning that for many of the missions flown by Nato jets over Libya or Afghanistan the aircraft would need to carry bombs and missiles on external pylons.&nbsp;</blockquote><br />The "internal weapons carriage" of the F-35 is not really that limited.&nbsp; It can carry 18,000 pounds of weapons in the A and C variations and 16,000 in the B.&nbsp; So no, it would not "need" to carry bombs and missiles on pylons to be effective, would it?&nbsp; And that renders the rest of the argument moot, doesn't it?&nbsp; But let's look at it anyway: <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Because these weapons and their pylons protrude under the wing they eliminate the vastly expensive stealth aspect of the airframe, while the manoeuvrability penalties of stealth design remain to hamper the jet’s combat agility.&nbsp; </blockquote>Ah, but again, there's nothing that says the F-35 must show up in contested air with stuff hanging off its wings, given its internal combat load - so while this is true for every other 4th gen aircraft, it's not true for the F-35.<br /><br />And finally:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">As stealth means deleting any radar-reflecting outlines, the F-35 cockpit canopy is set low, almost flush with the fuselage. Pilots on test squadrons in the US have noted how this eliminates the fine view from raised cockpits on established fighter designs such as the F-16. Despite high-tech sensors in the F-35, clear vision is still highly valued by military air crew and is yet another sacrifice made to stealth.&nbsp;</blockquote>This, of course, is nonsense.&nbsp; Name another jet which allows the pilot to see 360 degrees around his aircraft?&nbsp; As always, while the sensors are noted, they are simply waved away as if they didn't exist to make an argument that is absurd.&nbsp; <br /><br />This is a perfect example of someone who really knows nothing about the fighter except what has been available from critics, takes no time to research the other side or learn about the jet's capabilities and simply regurgitates nonsense that makes them look foolish.<br /><br />Much like my father viewed those who made war movies.<br /><br />Graff </div>Barry Graffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02463335145842065698noreply@blogger.com6